Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36417763›Full record

ArticleBlood advances2023

Optical genome mapping in acute myeloid leukemia: a multicenter evaluation.

Brynn Levy, Linda B Baughn, Yassmine Akkari, Scott Chartrand, Brandon LaBarge, David Claxton, P Alan Lennon, Claudia Cujar, Ravindra Kolhe, Kate Kroeger and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Blood advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Application of optical genome mapping technology in the genetic diagnosis of a family with a cryptic complex chromosomal balanced translocations].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Brynn LevyDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-4213-3480
Linda B BaughnDivision of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Yassmine AkkariSteve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH.
Scott ChartrandDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
Brandon LaBargeDepartment of Otolaryngology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
David ClaxtonDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.ORCID 0000-0001-9209-2405
P Alan LennonPathGroup, Nashville, TN.
Claudia CujarDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-2278-7839
Ravindra KolheDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA.ORCID 0000-0002-8283-2403
Kate KroegerCytogenetics Laboratory, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA.
Beth PitelDivision of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.ORCID 0000-0002-5138-824X
Nikhil SahajpalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA.
Malini SathanooriPathGroup, Nashville, TN.
George VladDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY.
Lijun ZhangDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.ORCID 0000-0003-4974-2745
Min FangClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Rashmi Kanagal-ShamannaDepartment of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.ORCID 0000-0001-7829-5249
James R BroachDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.ORCID 0000-0003-1197-0312
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USAugusta University · USMayo Clinic · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USNationwide Children's Hospital · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tissue Repository and Animal Models CoreP01CA171983 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI FISHER-WELLMAN, KELSEY H · 2013 to 2024
$19.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA171983
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of hallmark genomic aberrations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is essential for diagnostic subtyping, prognosis, and patient management. However, cytogenetic/cytogenomic techniques used to identify those aberrations, such as karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), are limited by the need for skilled personnel as well as significant time, cost, and labor. Optical genome mapping (OGM) provides a single, cost-effective assay with a significantly higher resolution than karyotyping and with a comprehensive genome-wide analysis comparable with CMA and the added unique ability to detect balanced structural variants (SVs). Here, we report in a real-world setting the performance of OGM in a cohort of 100 AML cases that were previously characterized by karyotype alone or karyotype and FISH or CMA. OGM identified all clinically relevant SVs and copy number variants (CNVs) reported by these standard cytogenetic methods when representative clones were present in >5% allelic fraction. Importantly, OGM identified clinically relevant information in 13% of cases that had been missed by the routine methods. Three cases reported with normal karyotypes were shown to have cryptic translocations involving gene fusions. In 4% of cases, OGM findings would have altered recommended clinical management, and in an additional 8% of cases, OGM would have rendered the cases potentially eligible for clinical trials. The results from this multi-institutional study indicate that OGM effectively recovers clinically relevant SVs and CNVs found by standard-of-care methods and reveals additional SVs that are not reported. Furthermore, OGM minimizes the need for labor-intensive multiple cytogenetic tests while concomitantly maximizing diagnostic detection through a standardized workflow.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteChromosome MappingHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaryotype

Identifiers

PMID36417763
PMCPMC10119592
OpenAlexW4309867008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.